Yes! I've read his work and honestly it changed how I think about poker fundamentally.
The Theory of Poker was a revelation for me. The concept of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker sounds simple on the surface — every time your opponent makes a decision they would not make if they could see your cards, you gain. But the deeper you think about it, the more it reshapes everything about how you approach the game.
Before reading Sklansky I was playing by feel and instinct. After — I started thinking in terms of ranges, equity and decision quality rather than just results.
That said, some of his work feels a bit dated now compared to modern GTO concepts. The game has evolved. But the foundational thinking he introduced? Still completely relevant.
He's one of those authors where you read the book once and think you understood it. Then you re-read it six months later and realize you missed half of it the first time.
The Theory of Poker was a revelation for me. The concept of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker sounds simple on the surface — every time your opponent makes a decision they would not make if they could see your cards, you gain. But the deeper you think about it, the more it reshapes everything about how you approach the game.
Before reading Sklansky I was playing by feel and instinct. After — I started thinking in terms of ranges, equity and decision quality rather than just results.
That said, some of his work feels a bit dated now compared to modern GTO concepts. The game has evolved. But the foundational thinking he introduced? Still completely relevant.
He's one of those authors where you read the book once and think you understood it. Then you re-read it six months later and realize you missed half of it the first time.
boxwaxer said:
I haven't read any of his books although I'm pretty sure I've got a copy of 'Theory of Poker' laying around somewhere. I know I've got a ton of Sklansky Bucks stashed away.
That's too bad he's passed away. He is a legend in the poker world for sure!
I have one of his but never got round to reading it but should although so much has changed with poker. Could do with going back to books as spent a lot on online courses and not picked up much. But did read the Harringtons which were quite chunky but good. Sklansky was meant to provide good theory though.
I have many of Sklansky's and Dan Harrington's books and they both really helped build my game and are still in parts of my game. Not sure how I missed this thread but I'm sorry to hear of Sklansky's passing. While man may not have been the best human and I don't support some of the things he's done I do respect the fact I'm play I am today in part because of his books. RIP.
Cheers!!!
Cheers!!!
He was one of the first to speak to the evils of sitter limping, only he called it "bad passive play", because the term "sitter limping" had not been invented yet.
AI summarizes as:
His books helped advanced some of the great players we see today, and helped people save a ton of Sklansky bucks.
RIP
AI summarizes as:
What Sklansky Says Specifically (paraphrased from his books and 2+2 forum posts)
- "Never limp first in."
If you are the first to enter a pot (no one has raised), you should either fold or raise. Limping is mathematically inferior. - "Limping behind other limpers is sometimes OK."
In multi-way pots with several limpers already, completing from the small blind or limping on the button with a speculative hand (small pair, suited connector) can be profitable if the blinds are unlikely to raise. But even then, raising is often better. - "The only exception is the small blind."
In a multi-way pot, completing from the small blind with any two cards can be correct because you are getting a discount. But Sklansky notes that many players overuse this and should raise more often from the small blind. - "Limping is a sign of a weak player."
In The Theory of Poker, he argues that consistent limping is a leak. Strong players raise or fold; they rarely call.
What About "Sitter Limping"?
- That's free money in the pot. You should raise to isolate the dead money, not limp behind it.
- Limping behind a dead blind is even worse than limping normally — you are letting live players see a cheap flop with you while there is free money to be claimed.
Summary Table: Sklansky on Limping
| Scenario | Sklansky's Recommendation |
|---|---|
| First to enter pot | Raise or fold. Never limp. |
| After 1-2 limpers, early position | Fold or raise. Limping is bad. |
| After 3+ limpers, on button or cutoff | Limping can be OK with speculative hands, but raising is usually better. |
| Small blind with multiple limpers | Completing is fine; raising is often better. |
| Against a known limper | Raise them relentlessly from late position. |
The One Exception Sklansky Acknowledges
In very deep-stacked, passive, live cash games where players rarely raise pre-flop, limping behind with suited connectors or small pairs can be profitable if you have excellent post-flop skills. But he still emphasizes that raising is usually more profitable in the long run.His books helped advanced some of the great players we see today, and helped people save a ton of Sklansky bucks.
RIP
Last edited:
Very sad to hear.
I've never read any of his books but my poker friends and I often refer to "Sklansky Dollars" when we lose a big pot in a big spot.
... Just think of all those Sklansky dollars you just made 🙂
I'm sure David, Doyle, Stu and Mike Sexton are playing one heck of a game right now in Poker Heaven 🙌
I've never read any of his books but my poker friends and I often refer to "Sklansky Dollars" when we lose a big pot in a big spot.
... Just think of all those Sklansky dollars you just made 🙂
I'm sure David, Doyle, Stu and Mike Sexton are playing one heck of a game right now in Poker Heaven 🙌
